1216 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

dragon_83 wrote...

DanteK wrote...

 the only place where rpg's are dieing are in the JRPG market, namely square enx who have sold out and betrayed its core fan group so they can make more games and more cash.

You see tha words written in bold? Now that is true to Bioware as well. They sold out so they can make more money. Instead of improving DAO, they stripped out a lot of things from it, and consolized it. They alienated their core fans who like hardcore rpgs, so they can appeal to the action RPG and hack and slash fans.

It is good to be objective.

BW has not betrayed its fans since BW owes nothing to its fans. It has been business relationship. They made the game, and people bought the game later becoming fans.

[dragon_83]

moilami wrote...

dragon_83 wrote...

DanteK wrote...

 the only place where rpg's are dieing are in the JRPG market, namely square enx who have sold out and betrayed its core fan group so they can make more games and more cash.

You see tha words written in bold? Now that is true to Bioware as well. They sold out so they can make more money. Instead of improving DAO, they stripped out a lot of things from it, and consolized it. They alienated their core fans who like hardcore rpgs, so they can appeal to the action RPG and hack and slash fans.

It is good to be objective.

BW has not betrayed its fans since BW owes nothing to its fans. It has been business relationship. They made the game, and people bought the game later becoming fans.

I was replying to DanteK's "square enix have sold out" comment. If SE sold out, than BW sold out too, there is no need to talk about BW as the savior of the RPG genre.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

Torpedic wrote...

I really hate this argument because people like you are ignoring the fact that DA Origins came out in 2009 and was as close to a classic RPG as anything else before it. It was a great game, it sold well, and more importantly for my point, its NOT old. Baldurs Gate is. People need to stop labelling classic RPG fans as old and telling them to accept those days are over, DA Origins says otherwise. Change is not bad, but in DA 2's case, change to appeal to the masses is.

DA: O was not a great game. The only thing classic about DA:O was the difficulty. The encounters were terrible. The level scaling made the game feel railroaded and predictable, the stat requirments were cliche, unrealistic, and really just silly. Then you still had small parties with most of the NPCs waster boogalooing by the camp fire, the mobs all felt the same, level scaling was as much a symptom as a problem and hardly a classic trait, the skills and classes were unbalanced, inflated hp soured a lot of aspects. I would consider it to be Bioware's worse RPG since the NWN OC.

[borelocin]

Medhia Nox wrote...

We should go back to text based RPGs. Those really were superior.

I remember text base MUDs ... they shat all over that World of Whatcraft thingy all the younguns are playing these days 

[Aidunno]

All those people who cry "It is a decline".. I wonder if they can pinpoint the "classic" features or is it a feeling based on previous experience and nostalgia.

[moilami]

dragon_83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

dragon_83 wrote...

DanteK wrote...

 the only place where rpg's are dieing are in the JRPG market, namely square enx who have sold out and betrayed its core fan group so they can make more games and more cash.

You see tha words written in bold? Now that is true to Bioware as well. They sold out so they can make more money. Instead of improving DAO, they stripped out a lot of things from it, and consolized it. They alienated their core fans who like hardcore rpgs, so they can appeal to the action RPG and hack and slash fans.

It is good to be objective.

BW has not betrayed its fans since BW owes nothing to its fans. It has been business relationship. They made the game, and people bought the game later becoming fans.

I was replying to DanteK's "square enix have sold out" comment. If SE sold out, than BW sold out too, there is no need to talk about BW as the savior of the RPG genre.

True.

[tausra]

I liked DA:O but found a lot of it to be very tedious, so much so that I have 3 games all stalled at the deep roads. Go to location a, fight your way through area B, reach boss 1a, discover some plot twist, fight boss 1a or 2a, get their support and then travel to location c. Ad nauseum.

[moilami]

Aidunno wrote...

All those people who cry "It is a decline".. I wonder if they can pinpoint the "classic" features or is it a feeling based on previous experience and nostalgia.

I played (and finished) maybe about 20 cRPGs before I even tried BG.

SSI Gold Boxed were the rise of cRPGs for me (even though Dungeon Master made me get Amiga at once, the same phenomenom what happened with Ridge Racer and PS1). Then cRPGs peaked with BGs and Fallouts. That is, those were the best games of all genres in my eyes. After that came a long fall regarding cRPGs, which ended with another peak with DA.

Now is coming yet another fall of cRPGs, unless the Witcher surpises me. In 2015 or 2020 or something another peak of RPGs is to be expected.

Your mileage may be different.


Signed by
Shameless Cherry Picker

Modifié par moilami, 06 mars 2011 - 01:29 .

[OriginalTibs]

Roseking wrote...

 "Old stuff is better, new stuff is not old stuff so it sucks"

Also artical has some wrong facts.

I'm sorry but what is a 'wrong fact'?
Are right facts those you like and wrong facts those you dislike? Or what?

[moilami]

 Funny by the way how some here talk like there would had been no fall of RPGs ever 

Modifié par moilami, 06 mars 2011 - 01:50 .

[OriginalTibs]

The OP should completely invest his/her own career and assets into building the 'classic' RPG, whatever that is, without factoring the prevailing demographics. Then, if the product generates a sufficient revenue stream to make the gamble profitable I will admit there is merit in calling the design a 'problem'.

[moilami]

OriginalTibs wrote...

The OP should completely invest his/her own career and assets into building the 'classic' RPG, whatever that is, without factoring the prevailing demographics. Then, if the product generates a sufficient revenue stream to make the gamble profitable I will admit there is merit in calling the design a 'problem'.

No, the OP is not a game designer (I guess).

That's why those who say this and that chokolade sucks or is good doesn't have to become a candy maker. Or test driver doesn't have to design cars. Or I say what music I like even though I am not a musician myself.

Self-explanatory and very obvious. But oh well, I have heard "DA is too hard" in these forums - so anything is possible here.

Modifié par moilami, 06 mars 2011 - 01:42 .

[moilami]

Was wondering why people are so emo of games. Thought it might be because they have used to read only reviews which are in practise written like marketing departments of game companies. But then I thought it still doesn't explain why peeps are so emo in forums.

I remember when I had many gamer friends IRL and we talked about games things were very different. Each of us had their own opinions and favorites. At times we agreed and at times we disagreed, but even when we disagreed we often laughed madly when someone ridiculated *my* favorite game. And game wars were nothing when compared to passionate ST/Amiga/PC wars. Those were really fun!

So, peeps, why so emo lol?

[In Exile]

soteria wrote...
The problem here is that you're basing how good a computer is by how "up to date" the parts are. That's a largely meaningless meter--all that matters is whether you can run your games at max settings without stuttering or a poor framerate. I can. Good job owning an up to date computer when a cheaper one can do the job just as well? By all means, spend more money to get that bleeding edge computer, but please stop trying to tell people that they have to do the same. The truth is you just don't need an up to date computer.

But the problem with this view is that you introduce a very high technical barrier for most people, in that they have to be intimately familiar with the hardware market, comparative advantages between software, technical details of performance and have the basic ability and will to assemble their PC in the first place.

Every time we have this PC vs. console debate re: price, the issue that gets lost in the shuffle is the nature of the buyer. For some people, who have the expertiese and time, the PC can be a much better deal. For people that lack all of this, then a console is a better deal.

I remember when I had many gamer friends IRL and we talked about
games things were very different. Each of us had their own opinions and
favorites. At times we agreed and at times we disagreed, but even when
we disagreed we often laughed madly when someone ridiculated *my*
favorite game. And game wars were nothing when compared to passionate
ST/Amiga/PC wars. Those were really fun!

Did one group of your friends ever imply the other group was dumber/simpler/less complex or whatever and then the other side was totally cool with that? Because this is where you get the "emo" here. The rampant vitrol.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 mars 2011 - 02:50 .

[AkiKishi]

dragon_83 wrote...

moilami wrote...

dragon_83 wrote...

DanteK wrote...

 the only place where rpg's are dieing are in the JRPG market, namely square enx who have sold out and betrayed its core fan group so they can make more games and more cash.

You see tha words written in bold? Now that is true to Bioware as well. They sold out so they can make more money. Instead of improving DAO, they stripped out a lot of things from it, and consolized it. They alienated their core fans who like hardcore rpgs, so they can appeal to the action RPG and hack and slash fans.

It is good to be objective.

BW has not betrayed its fans since BW owes nothing to its fans. It has been business relationship. They made the game, and people bought the game later becoming fans.

I was replying to DanteK's "square enix have sold out" comment. If SE sold out, than BW sold out too, there is no need to talk about BW as the savior of the RPG genre.

I don't see SquareEnix doing anything different to what they have always done. FFXIII , I thought was horrible, but FF games change every time so it's always a bit hit or miss.
It's still very recognisibly an FF game with all the same sorts of features FF games have. Maybe he's refering to the online stuff ? But they did FFXI and still went back to doing what they did previously. FFXIII-2 is coming out in Winter, hopefully with better mechanics.

If Bioware took ME mass market and kept DA more traditional I doubt people would be reacting the way they are now. But DA2 looks like a rush job made designed around statistics.

And if there is not auto attack toggle it will be a horrible button masher unless you like pausing every other second. Still all that pausing should make the same seem longer...

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 mars 2011 - 02:56 .

[moilami]

In Exile wrote...

soteria wrote...
The problem here is that you're basing how good a computer is by how "up to date" the parts are. That's a largely meaningless meter--all that matters is whether you can run your games at max settings without stuttering or a poor framerate. I can. Good job owning an up to date computer when a cheaper one can do the job just as well? By all means, spend more money to get that bleeding edge computer, but please stop trying to tell people that they have to do the same. The truth is you just don't need an up to date computer.

But the problem with this view is that you introduce a very high technical barrier for most people, in that they have to be intimately familiar with the hardware market, comparative advantages between software, technical details of performance and have the basic ability and will to assemble their PC in the first place.

Every time we have this PC vs. console debate re: price, the issue that gets lost in the shuffle is the nature of the buyer. For some people, who have the expertiese and time, the PC can be a much better deal. For people that lack all of this, then a console is a better deal.

I remember when I had many gamer friends IRL and we talked about
games things were very different. Each of us had their own opinions and
favorites. At times we agreed and at times we disagreed, but even when
we disagreed we often laughed madly when someone ridiculated *my*
favorite game. And game wars were nothing when compared to passionate
ST/Amiga/PC wars. Those were really fun!

Did one group of your friends ever imply the other group was dumber/simpler/less complex or whatever and then the other side was totally cool with that? Because this is where you get the "emo" here. The rampant vitrol.

Lol you can bet on that and win millions. And it was done not only verbally but acting like a moronical X fan too. Those gave the best laughs on all sides and participants.

[Mezinger]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...
DA: O was not a great game... I would consider it to be Bioware's worse RPG since the NWN OC

Clearly this is a mater of taste, DA:O and NWN are two of my favourite games of all time. DA:O was great in my opinion.

[JemyM]

-double-

Modifié par JemyM, 06 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[JemyM]

Let me offer a different perspective.

The science behind my brain suggest that I have a strong connection between using my orbito-frontal cortex (cognitive processing and decision-making) and my nucleus accumbens (pleasure center). This means that the brains pleasure hormone, dopamine, is released when I comprehend a situation, devise strategies, figuring things out.

This flows through very aspect in my life, from my studies, to how I approach every day problems, how I improve my life, how I face challenges, and the kind of games I enjoy.

Fun for me, is to figure stuff out. Fun, for me, is to build stuff, to solve problems, to devise strategies, to make long term plans and achieve them. This is how I feel pleasure and reward.


So am I an oldtimer who fail to adapt?

I doubt it. People like me have enjoyed games since the pyramids. People like me are born all the time, some like me just begun playing games.


The idea "oldtimers cannot adapt" is a thought-stopping cliché that traveled around the market for awhile. Catering to one single archetype of customers leave out not "oldtimers", but people of certain personalities who enjoy certain content simply because they find such content fun and rewarding.


Next time you believe that complexity, strategy and rich mechanics is "oldschool", please remember that DOOM came before Fallout 2, and DOOM was loathed by people like me already back then. The only thing that have changed is that back then it was pretty obvious that people enjoyed different games. People didn't say that games had to follow a certain formula because it was good for everyone.

Now if people say that Dragon Age 2 is an "evolution" you do not understand evolution. Copying other games isn't evolution nor innovation. Once upon a time the expression "DOOM-CLONE" was widely used for games that looked very similar to DOOM that was popular at the time. Looking through the list of features of DA2 I see nothing that I can qualify as "next step", new nor original. In fact, everything seems to be inspired/copied from other games rather than trying to be new and unique.


But it is understandable that culture works this way and eventually do no matter what the product. The capitalist market where developers needs investors, or capital, tend to reduce choice rather than expand choice. When risk vs reward calculations are made, less and less risk is taken. Eventually this creates a market with fewer goods and with very little variation. When you hear people claiming "this is fun", "we removed it to make it more fun" or make excuses that "only oldschoolers object" you see the progression into a market that is very similar to the planned economy of the soviet union, where all you have is mass-production of a few wares, and the rationalizations for doing so.

Modifié par JemyM, 06 mars 2011 - 03:23 .

[Bonkz]

JemyM wrote...

Let me offer a different perspective.

The science behind my brain suggest that I have a strong connection between using my orbito-frontal cortex (cognitive processing and decision-making) and my nucleus accumbens (pleasure center). This means that the brains pleasure hormone, dopamine, is released when I comprehend a situation, devise strategies, figuring things out.

This flows through very aspect in my life, from my studies, to how I approach every day problems, how I improve my life, how I face challenges, and the kind of games I enjoy.

Fun for me, is to figure stuff out. Fun, for me, is to build stuff, to solve problems, to devise strategies, to make long term plans and achieve them. This is how I feel pleasure and reward.


So am I an oldtimer who fail to adapt?

I doubt it. People like me have enjoyed games since the pyramids. People like me are born all the time, some like me just begun playing games.


The idea "oldtimers cannot adapt" is a thought-stopping cliché that traveled around the market for awhile. Catering to one single archetype of customers leave out not "oldtimers", but people of certain personalities who enjoy certain content simply because they find such content fun and rewarding.


Next time you believe that complexity, strategy and rich mechanics is "oldschool", please remember that DOOM came before Fallout 2, and DOOM was loathed by people like me already back then. The only thing that have changed is that back then it was pretty obvious that people enjoyed different games. People didn't say that games had to follow a certain formula because it was good for everyone.

Now if people say that Dragon Age 2 is an "evolution" you do not understand evolution. Copying other games isn't evolution nor innovation. Once upon a time the expression "DOOM-CLONE" was widely used for games that looked very similar to DOOM that was popular at the time. Looking through the list of features of DA2 I see nothing that I can qualify as "next step", new nor original. In fact, everything seems to be inspired/copied from other games rather than trying to be new and unique.


But it is understandable that culture works this way and eventually do no matter what the product. The capitalist market where developers needs investors, or capital, tend to reduce choice rather than expand choice. When risk vs reward calculations are made, less and less risk is taken. Eventually this creates a market with fewer goods and with very little variation. When you hear people claiming "this is fun", "we removed it to make it more fun" or make excuses that "only oldschoolers object" you see the progression into a market that is very similar to the planned economy of the soviet union, where all you have is mass-production of a few wares, and the rationalizations for doing so.

This.....just this. I thought you climbed into my mind and read it. I couldn't have said it better myself.

As for the game itself.....i have played the demo and i thought it was fun. Fun but not even close to what i expected. If i didn't know about the game already i'd say it is an action game with stats. Most of the things that define a classic RPG are removed from what i read and hear. It is a fact that RPGs like the "older" ones aren't made anymore and i doubt that they will be made in the future. It's another audience that game companies try to provide for cause it gives bigger sales and that's something i can't blame a company for i suppose. Oh well, at least it is a bit fun to play so i will spend some hours on it.

Modifié par Bonkz, 06 mars 2011 - 03:34 .

[Bonkz]

double

Modifié par Bonkz, 06 mars 2011 - 03:37 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

JemyM wrote...

(SNIP)

But it is understandable that culture works this way and eventually do no matter what the product. The capitalist market where developers needs investors, or capital, tend to reduce choice rather than expand choice. When risk vs reward calculations are made, less and less risk is taken. Eventually this creates a market with fewer goods and with very little variation. When you hear people claiming "this is fun", "we removed it to make it more fun" or make excuses that "only oldschoolers object" you see the progression into a market that is very similar to the planned economy of the soviet union, where all you have is mass-production of a few wares, and the rationalizations for doing so.

I was with you right up until this part (btw, very well thought out and expressed). I disagree that the problem is "capitalism" but rather the high entry cost to make tripe A games. Customers demand the high graphics, cinematics, voiced protagonists, etc., which demands a significant investment. The higher the investment, the less risk investors want to take. It is the same phenomenon with "block buster movies" in that it costs so much to make the flashy films that they have to make a hundred million dollars or they cannot recoup their costs. The movie studios, or the game publisher just cannot risk investing that much money on some other than a "proven" formula.

I think this happened to DA2 - the original was successful, so much so that they thought they could make the sequel EVEN more successful by "tweaking" it which also meant making it more "accessible" which many of us equate to "dumbing down." And just by looking at these boards, whose to say they were wrong? A lot of people loudly proclaim how much they love all the changes, hated the inventory, are happy with not changing companion armor, etc.

IOW, Bioware is just following the market. However, capitalism also works in our favor. If there is a market for the kind of game that many of us want and hoped the DA series would provide, some enterprising entreupeneur will make it - just look at the success the Witcher had (even though I stopped playing it after an hour or two - not my kind of game at all - but a lot of people loved it). Of course, such a game will not be a triple A title with all the bells and whistles, but "If you build it, they will come..." A lot can be done with an older, cheaper license, some innovative designers and passion.

Of course, when THAT studio becomes enormously successful, then they too will start creating triple A games and face the same fear of risk and will "dumb down" THEIR games until some new studio pops up and begins the cycle all over again...

[Krathax]

With DA 2 I am gettng exactly what I expect from Bioware these days. This moprphing of their games from Baldur's Gate era has certainly not been 'sudden', it is not a surprise. I vote with my dollar, action RPGs have their place and can be fun.

For 'old school', though the titles are limited and niche, they pop out every now and again. Knights of the Chalice certainly satisfied in this regard and Age of Decadence looks promising as well.

Krathax

[JemyM]

I was with you right up until this part (btw, very well thought out and expressed). I disagree that the problem is "capitalism" but rather the high entry cost to make tripe A games. Customers demand the high graphics, cinematics, voiced protagonists, etc., which demands a significant investment. The higher the investment, the less risk investors want to take. It is the same phenomenon with "block buster movies" in that it costs so much to make the flashy films that they have to make a hundred million dollars or they cannot recoup their costs. The movie studios, or the game publisher just cannot risk investing that much money on some other than a "proven" formula.

My use of "capitalism" here is a bit sloppy. I meant that games moved into a market where investors (=capitalists) is neccessary to produce and publish a game. Like you say this moves the decision on what games should be made to the investor who want return on his/her investment. Just like you say this lead to a development structure where "proven formula" -> games, rather than "new and thus risky ideas" = games.

There have been some improvement in this regard with Windows LIVE and Playstation Network, where small developers can distribute games at low cost without the need for an investor, but the AAA games is caught in the system that make AAA games equal to the market you find on Cuba, shelves upon shelves with very similar games, made with only one customer in mind (the only one who ever planned the economy knew about and could think of when he decided what wares should be produced).

I think this happened to DA2 - the original was successful, so much so that they thought they could make the sequel EVEN more successful by "tweaking" it which also meant making it more "accessible" which many of us equate to "dumbing down." And just by looking at these boards, whose to say they were wrong? A lot of people loudly proclaim how much they love all the changes, hated the inventory, are happy with not changing companion armor, etc. IOW, Bioware is just following the market.

Which brings the question why they played DA:O in the first place? I think I have the perfect answer to that question.

RPG's (even pnp) is a cool genré because it use to cater to a wide range of very different people. The tactical minds, the puzzlesolvers, the social gamers, players who are in it for the action etc. If you as a game master can only run one type of game, you reduce your gaming group. Sucessful GM's know how to diversify the content, balancing it out, so that each personality around the table get something out from it. No one like everything in the game, but all likes the game as a whole.

RPG's are a buffét. You increase the market by increasing the range of customers who may enjoy something in your product. No one will buy everything from the table, but ten customers who bought one out of ten dishes equals ten customers. Not only do they come back at a later time because they enjoyed the meal, they may even invite friends who might also enjoy the meal EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T EAT THE SAME THING. Now what would happen if the chef decided he could meet the market better if he made only the dish that most customers seemed to like?


I propose the idea that the developers did not rationally "follow the market". They do follow a popular meme that been around in business for a long time, an idea that have actually been debunked. This is the idea of an universal hypotetical end customer nicknamed the "average gamer". Why this mindset is corrosive have been known for quite some time. Have a listen to this talk about "tomato sauce" that speaks about the problem with this mindset;

http://www.ted.com/t...etti_sauce.html


As a sidenote they yet again failed to advertise the game for women. Sims have topped the sales record for years and years, yet there is this thought-stopping cliché that "girls doesn't play games".

However, capitalism also works in our favor. If there is a market for the kind of game that many of us want and hoped the DA series would provide, some enterprising entreupeneur will make it - just look at the success the Witcher had (even though I stopped playing it after an hour or two - not my kind of game at all - but a lot of people loved it). Of course, such a game will not be a triple A title with all the bells and whistles, but "If you build it, they will come..." A lot can be done with an older, cheaper license, some innovative designers and passion.

Of course, when THAT studio becomes enormously successful, then they too will start creating triple A games and face the same fear of risk and will "dumb down" THEIR games until some new studio pops up and begins the cycle all over again...

This might be true.

[Supreme-Jim]

I haven't seen a real problem with DA2 yet.. aside from not being able to manage companion armor. I enjoy doing stuff like that.

Everyone's gonna have their opinions, its impossible to satisfy everyone. All you can do is your best and hope the majority approves.